I'm in full support of an impact fee. Whether or not the details are as they should be, I have to see more detail before making a call. But the basic premise is sound.

I do not support a tax which goes to the general fund and can thus be used for other purposes.

Basically, there are indeed impacts of drilling. Roads and bridges and traffic. Increased monitoring requirements, etc. So long as the money goes towards the entities that are immediately impacted, I'm happy. But don't ignore the impacts and simply tax em as a penalty. Or worse, use the money for random grants, schools, etc. and never actually fix the problems created.

It may not have been a year, but certainly a few months. This is not a change in any manner for Corbett's position, he recommended this and supported it for a while now. The "new" news is merely that it's finally coming to fruition.

seems like he wants to let the counties decide what fees to impose and let them collect them. is this a good idea or bad? would it be better for the state to regulate fees? I suppose there are pros and cons either way. I do agree it's a good idea to get money out of em to help with regulation, enforcement, and damage repair(roads, environment,etc)funny though, just last year he wanted the state to control all aspects of this industry, in order to "streamline" the process.

Whose job will it be to collect impact fees for the rigs on State land?

Plenty of those roads and bridges are being damaged too, not to mention damage to streams and timbered areas. Those lands belong to everyone in the State, not just the residents of the counties where they are located.

Who's watching out for them, the understaffed DEP and DCNR?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Posted on: 2011/10/4 18:16

_________________
"Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel, and they tortured the timber and stripped all the land. Well they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken, then they wrote it all down as the progress of man."

good questions Tim. if we use history as an example, it will be us paying for it! hopefully this won't be the case. not only should there be impact fees for the state land, these fees and the royalties generated from the wells should be put back into the state owned lands, not only to repair damage, but also to upgrade our parks, expand state forests, game lands, etc. just a while back we talked about the state wanting to privatize the parks, probably because they have no money to staff them, but hey, what about all this gas money that is supposed to be generated? put that right back into the parks and state lands. return them to the award winning status they had not all that long ago.yeah, I'm dreaming.

Plenty of those roads and bridges are being damaged too, not to mention damage to streams and timbered areas.

Yeah, but who takes care of those roads and bridges and streams? That's who needs to get the money.

Quote:

not only should there be impact fees for the state land, these fees and the royalties generated from the wells should be put back into the state owned lands, not only to repair damage, but also to upgrade our parks, expand state forests, game lands, etc.

I totally disagree. Not because I don't support state forests, parks, game lands, etc. Just because I don't see ANY connection with the drilling industry. There are a lot of good causes out there that could use more $$$, where does it end? You can't just ask an industry you don't like to pay for the stuff you do like. I hate mushrooms. Perhaps I should ask that mushroom taxes be imposed to pay for my favorite programs?

I want the drillers to pay for every penny of what they cause, and nothing else. If the DEP's and DCNR budgets have to increase to allow for monitoring, the drilling industry should be responsible for covering the increase. If PFBC's budget went up to monitor fish populations, the drilling industry should pay for it. If a bridge needs repaired after 10 years, when it should have lasted 30, then the drillers should pay 2/3rds. If municipalities have to improve their sewage treatment facilities to account for wastewater handling, well, the drillers should pay for that.

Getting this amount of money correct, and sending it to the correct entities, is difficult, I understand that, and it's likely to lead to debates. The devil is always in the details, and I'm in no position to judge whether this proposal hits the mark or not. I'm just saying I do support the concept of "impact fee", where the money goes to the entities most impacted by the industry.

But they should not be asked to pay for things unrelated to their business, such as you are implying. At least no more than any other industry (they pay business taxes like any other).

It just gets passed on to those rich people heating their homes with gas and using electricity generated with gas.

Exactly (well, with the sarcasm included). To think a fee or a tax hurts the fat cats in any way is ridiculous. It simply increases the cost of gas and electricity, so it's passed onto the consumer.

Now, if that's a fair increase, meaning it's better reflecting the TRUE cost of drilling, then thats a good thing. The environmental and societal issues should be built into the price. The same should be true of all types of energy, and well, everything else really.

The market is always going to win. Stop fighting it, and instead fight to make it honest. We'll all be better off for it.

It just gets passed on to those rich people heating their homes with gas and using electricity generated with gas.

Exactly (well, with the sarcasm included). To think a fee or a tax hurts the fat cats in any way is ridiculous. It simply increases the cost of gas and electricity, so it's passed onto the consumer.

Now, if that's a fair increase, meaning it's better reflecting the TRUE cost of drilling, then thats a good thing. The environmental and societal issues should be built into the price. The same should be true of all types of energy, and well, everything else really.

The market is always going to win. Stop fighting it, and instead fight to make it honest. We'll all be better off for it.

Even if the taxes were not passed on to the consumer they would be passed on to the stock holders. Something like 45% of stock traded on US exchanges is owned by public and private pension funds or IRAs and 401Ks. Most of the larger gas drillers are publicly held. These are primarily pensions of working people and retirees. So either way the working man gets pinched.

eh, you're right technically, but I'm not overly concerned about stock price. Like you said, 45% is owned by retirement plans. Meaning 55% is owned by investors. Plus, either way, that money is watered down by a billion other stocks, and takes a long time for it to go back into circulation anyway.

It's more about what is right and fair. EVERY industry out there has negative impacts for society, whether they be environmental or other. You can't just pick the industries you hate the most, and ask them to pay for totally unrelated programs that you like the most. But rather, those negative impacts should be built into the price of the product. Failing to do so is a de facto subsidy.